| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): I sincerely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) on securing the debate and on introducing his ten-minute Bill the other day. The debate and the Bill address what is an important issue for many of our constituents. I thank him particularly because the subject is one that people often avoid; they feel that its technicalities are difficult. They are indeed complex, but, at the end of the day, it comes down to one thing: a better service for our constituents. We hope that a service can be extended to those who are unfortunate enough to be unable to receive it at present.
My hon. Friend and other hon. Members have pointed out how much people like to watch their own regional news. It is rather ironic that, at a time when we are seeing the growth of community television channels and when we are doing everything possible, through the regional development agencies and so on, to encourage people to develop regional identity, too many people are still unable to receive their regional television news.
The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) pointed out that some of his constituents could not receive television signals at all. I did not realise that that was still the case, even though I know Hexham well--I was born in Newcastle, just down the road. I welcome his reference to the helpful BBC leaflet that explains that it is possible to receive satellite television without subscribing to Sky. That is a welcome development from the BBC.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) said that his constituents could receive only Welsh news from Wales and Wolverhampton. That problem is not technically insoluble. As he helpfully suggests, I shall talk to some of my colleagues in other Departments to find out what can be done to release spectrum.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) complained that some of his constituents could receive only Geordie news. If he wants a translation, perhaps I could provide one. The hon. Gentleman referred to cricket in Lancashire and Yorkshire; I shall not dwell on that matter for too long, but I do not know whether he has noticed that Mr. Deputy Speaker is wearing a Yorkshire county cricket club tie--that is most appropriate for this debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) told us that he had been campaigning on this issue ever since he became a Member of Parliament. We know that, and I pay tribute to him for the way in which he has never lost an opportunity to present the concerns of his constituents. I very much agree with him that the subject of this debate is not a frivolous one. I was especially interested in what he said about the safety aspects: he pointed out that there are chemical plants and a nuclear facility in his area but that, often, people could not receive news about emergencies at those plants. That is extremely worrying. He also pointed out that he could not even watch coverage of his own by-election.
The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) made an important point about social exclusion. Television can contribute towards including people throughout society. We are considering that matter. He also mentioned fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wanted to bring together a regulators
forum. We are considering that matter in the Department. The hon. Gentleman made the helpful suggestion that such a forum could investigate regional anomalies. He referred to the report of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport; we always take particular notice of what is said by his and my colleagues on that Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) probably summed up the matter when he said that the broadcasters will not act if they are left to themselves. I hope that that will not be the case, but I suspect that it might be true. Any pressure that can be exerted by Parliament will certainly be most welcome. The issue is important and we should not allow it to go away.
It is most welcome that the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) so often agrees with us on these issues. I am delighted to hear that he and his colleagues agree with our evolutionary approach to what is happening in broadcasting. We believe that it is wise to allow the expansion to take place before the Government take action. It would be a huge error to do something only to find, six months later, that we had done the wrong thing.
The delivery of the correct regional services was an important issue in the planning of the analogue transmitter network. Nevertheless, we recognise that there are still a number of areas in the UK where consumers do not have access to television transmissions that carry programmes from the correct region. To date, the priority of the BBC, the Independent Television Commission and the Government has been to ensure that as many people in the UK as possible can receive a service. Sadly, it has not been a priority to improve coverage of the correct regional variations.
Many hon. Members have referred to the problems of the hard of hearing and those with sensory disabilities. I reassure the House that we have held discussions with the Royal National Institute for Deaf People about that, and I am today writing to the broadcasters to ask them what they are doing to encourage the development of digital services. In particular, we shall point out the need for more subtitling on television. We shall also refer to the problem of regional anomalies.
I understand the argument that digital technology, which increases the number of television services that can be broadcast, should enable regional anomalies to be corrected. Certainly, digital compression techniques do enable a number of services to be carried on a single multiplex, transmitted on one frequency channel. In the future, those techniques may be refined further so that the number of services transmitted at any one time can be increased.
The Government recognise the importance of providing the correct regional services, wherever possible. While analogue transmissions continue, it is unlikely that additional frequency channels could be found to use digital television transmission to rectify regional anomalies. However, we have asked the broadcasters to take into account the possibility of resolving such anomalies in future planning exercises and we shall continue to do so.
The Government want to encourage early and widespread access to the benefits offered by new digital technology. An announcement of a date for the switch-over from analogue to digital transmission will be an important driver in the take-up and success of digital television. The Government want to announce a switch- over date as soon as possible; that will be done as soon as is practicable. However, we are keen to ensure that the date we give is announced with sufficient certainty to give industry and consumers confidence in making their investment and purchasing decisions. That can be done only on the basis of a properly considered strategy, set against the background of actual digital services that are winning public acceptance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle referred to a consultation paper, which we published in February 1998, entitled "Television: The Digital Future". That document dealt with the ways in which digital television and its benefits could best be introduced throughout the UK and how the switch from analogue to digital services could take place. We are now considering the responses to that consultation paper. A significant number were in favour of a Government announcement, within two years, of either a firm date or a target date. A significant body of opinion also favoured the timing of the announcement being based on criteria being met--for example, that of 50 per cent. penetration of digital services, or of near-universal penetration of digital services. Again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk for introducing his ten-minute Bill, which made such a valuable contribution in encouraging the debate.
A co-ordinated planning exercise will be needed to assess the various issues that the switch-over to digital transmission will raise. One of those issues will be the priority to be given to resolving regional reception anomalies. Work on that is already in hand, and I can tell the House that we expect to say more on that matter before the summer recess.
I conclude by thanking everyone who has contributed to this important debate. For far too long, people have been reluctant to address this issue. The debate is a most welcome contribution and, like the hon. Member for West Suffolk, I hope that the broadcasters are listening.
Mrs. Caroline Spelman (Meriden):
I am pleased to be granted the opportunity to introduce this debate on early years education; the subject is very close to my heart, as I have three children who fall into that category.
We need to define what we mean by early years education--there is some confusion as to the age group that is covered by that phrase. I asked the headmistress of my children's local school, whose authority on such matters I always respect. She told me that it was internationally accepted that early years education covered children up to the age of eight. I was rather pleased to hear that because, although I am not a professionally trained teacher, that is the age group of which I have direct experience. That experience has been accumulated in several different locations: the nature of political work is such that one moves around a lot, first as a candidate and then as a Member of Parliament to one's constituency; and because early years education provision varies around the country, I have had a chance to experience several different systems.
Above all, I am anxious that today's debate should focus on the quality of early years education and that the needs of the child should be paramount in our discussion. By the end of the debate, we should have a better idea of what we mean by "quality" and be working on ways to achieve that quality for all children. Key to the provision of early years education are the people who look after the children. Children need to attach themselves to someone--the jargon refers to such people as "key workers"--but the parent's understanding of their role is rather different from the child's. The first time a mother takes her young child to a place providing early years education, it is a wrench to leave that child for two and a half hours; usually a few tears are shed, and not only by the child.
It is essential that both parent and child trust the worker who is to take care of the child. Trust develops over time, and the authority, ideas and values conveyed by that other adult become important to the child's family and then to the community in which the early years provision is located. I am sure that other parents will be able to identify with what authority their child comes home and says, "But Mummy, Mrs. McKay said today that we must do such and such." That shows the influence that that key person can exert.
If there is turnover in staff, or if staff are of inadequate quality, that can be extremely unsettling for a child, so the quality of personnel is an essential consideration. We have to decide what should be the minimum qualifications for those working in early years education. What sort of training should they receive, and who will manage and monitor that? We must also consider the issue of child protection. Unfortunately, we have become more aware of how vulnerable children are in all sorts of educational settings, so adequate thought must be given to protecting them.
The second key element of quality is the environment. That extends beyond the basic requirements of the environment being clean, safe and warm; it must be appropriate to the age group of children. I was concerned by the report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools which identified several early years environments that
were inadequate: for example, 14 per cent. had no outdoor play area. As all parents know, as well as learning, children of the ages covered by early years provision need to let off steam. If there is no outdoor facility, that environment is not appropriate to the age group.
11 am
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |